Our Founders tossed a huge responsibility into the lap of the judicial branch. It’s the judiciary’s job to be the independent, even-handed adult in the room, the counterpart to the surely political executive and legislative branches — in effect, to keep our ship of state on an even keel.

For 250 years, we’ve counted on the judiciary to wrestle to the ground the kind of contentious and fundamentally important issues that inevitably arise when a growing nation, in an ever more complicated world, strives to stay true to the core principles enshrined in our Constitution.

But alas, we now live in an intractably political environment, so much so that those who have policy disagreements with the administration in power have increasingly turned to the judiciary to take their side. In doing so, they have effectively added a second major responsibility to the judiciary system: to second-guess executive decision-making.

Their standard tactic is to find a sympathetic like-minded judge — anywhere — willing to issue an injunction blocking the particular executive action with which they disagree.

The process of engaging the judiciary to challenge questionable executive actions is not new; it’s been employed for years and, in many cases, is fully consistent with the judicial branch’s role. However, there’s a fine line between a judge determining the constitutionality of a particular executive action and that judge deciding that if he or she were president, they would act differently.

The practice is now increasing by leaps and bounds, employed by both sides of the political aisle, although more by Democrats and — surprise, surprise — with far more injunctions against actions by Donald Trump than for any president in U.S. history.

When you get right down to it, it’s a very handy tactic to possibly neutralize a president you don’t like, and in any case to delay, disrupt and embarrass him — all without congressional approval or a single vote by anyone. Just find the right judge and turn him or her loose.

Here’s a scenario that might sound familiar. A president takes office and immediately must deal with the fact that some 12 million or more unvetted migrants have taken up residence in the country, all a burden and some very problematic. He chooses to deport as many as possible, as soon as possible, in accordance with U.S. law (the Immigration and Naturalization Act) that establishes deportation as the penalty for illegal entry. He proceeds on that basis.

But “NOT SO FAST!”, orders a district judge somewhere in the nation, holding that our Constitution guarantees due process for all, and that due process in the case that has come to his attention should include steps x, y, and z; and because the administration has not afforded that opportunity to the migrants in that case, he is hereby ordered not to proceed you with the deportations already directed. That’s how you get incredible orders like “turn back that planeload of migrants headed for Venezuela, RIGHT NOW!”

In summary, our elected president acts on a matter he considers urgent, and a single unelected judge, several layers down in the judicial hierarchy, decides otherwise. Is that the way it should happen? That one was ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court, but the process of using the judiciary to disrupt presidential executive actions has become routine, particularly in the Trump era. President Trump was hit with 86 nationwide injunctions in his first term, and 34 in just the first six months of his current term.

In my view, the most egregious case of malicious judicial interference with a president’s executive decision-making is the current white-hot flap about Trump’s White House East Wing modification — the so-called “ballroom.”

Ask yourself this question: If any person other than Donald J. Trump were POTUS, would the Democrats have moved mountains to derail a planned White House modification? And if the construction work had already been started, would they try to stop it in its tracks?

Well, they did exactly that; and perhaps the mid-point halt is particularly attractive. Who cares that there’s no un-baking the cake at that point, or if the mid-project delay will just slow down the project and run up the cost? Nah, it’s much better to let that gaping excavation eyesore sit out there for all to see, reminding Americans that the wannabe dictator president has overstepped his authority once again.

Never mind that the White House has been modified, upgraded, and repaired repeatedly through its 226 years of existence.

Never mind that there is a constant need for an appropriate, large-scale, and secure venue for presidential events involving foreign dignitaries and their guests. The current practice of hosting such events outdoors under a temporary tent, served by porta-potties, is clearly inadequate.

Never mind that there is now greater need than ever before for close-in security at the White House. Let’s not forget the armed attack just a few months ago on the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the escalating political violence nationwide, and the multiple active attempts to take the president’s life.

And never mind the nonsensical assertions that Trump is building an elaborate ballroom in order to show off and entertain his wealthy friends. At the earliest, the project will not be completed until late in his term (unless you believe he actually has no intent to ever leave).

I have no way of knowing whether Trump’s concept for the modification is ideal, whether the security features on the lower floors will meet current and future needs, and whether the aesthetic is tasteful (or gaudy, as many of his critics claim — or assume). But what I do know is that Trump had a very successful, long-term career building such things, and that he surely knows more about how to do it than anyone in Congress. And I’m quite sure that both Congress and the Supreme Court have more important things to do.

I’ve no doubt that District Judge Richard Leon and the Court of Appeals are legally correct in ruling that decisions to upgrade government facilities, such as the White House, are the responsibility of Congress (although keep in mind that in 1778, when our Constitution was adopted, there was no White House). But to those who orchestrated and then cheered the legal challenge, I offer this: Aside from the satisfaction of temporarily derailing the actions of a president whom you detest and garnering attaboys from your peanut gallery, you’ve accomplished absolutely nothing of benefit to the nation.